Talk:GPA neutrality dispute
Of the offender being part of the GPA, or not Someone added this sentence, that I find unneeded, without signing it: :and has not been proven to even have been a part of the GPA Nobody (to my knowledge) even accused the GPA to have been harboring the offender, let alone tried to prove it. If that sentence won't be better explained/worded, I will take it off in 24-48 hours. Or, s/o else can do it of course. --Jerdge 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC). ::As nobody showed up I removed that sentence. --Jerdge 12:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC). Refinement of page Please post your suggestions here. Thanks. --Jerdge 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC). :This sentence doesn't satisfy me, but I'm uncertain about how to improve it: :"This has been interpreted as a confirmation of the GGA's accusations by some, but as proof that the GPA adhered to its neutrality standards (by appropriatedly punishing the offending member) by others." :If we write that "some" interpreted, we should be able to say who did it. A previous sentence was something like: :This could be interpreted as a confirmation of the GGA's accusations, but also as a proof that the GPA adhered to its neutrality standards (by appropriatedly punishing the offending member). :that still doesn't satisfy me... Ideas, anybody? --Jerdge 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC). : Also, "appropriatedly" may be seen as Non-NPOV. --Jerdge 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC). I tossed in the bit about the Alliance for International Defense to make sure that folks don't try to drag themselves into it because of the coincidence of names and abbreviations. JTBeowulf 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Page Title I moved the page to "GPA neutrality dispute" from "GPA OOC attack incident" because while it was started from an OOC attack the title is ambiguous and seems to imply that the GPA did the attack. Moreover, the article and the incident may have started because of the attack but it is only notable in the game and important in this article because it describes the eventual lead to the removals of the signatures from the DoN. I think that makes the new title more appropriate. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Update on nations More nations are cutting off contact with GPA add nao This article isn't NPOV for example, It is speculated that the GGA and NPO leadership used the atmosphere of hysteria and drama on the forums over the OOC incident to push for IC war. It '''is furthermore speculated that Bilrow and part of the GGA are secretly jealous of the power and prestige of the GPA and of their long enduring success in neutrality;' as such, this incident would have been used as a pretext for warmongering in order for the GGA to annex the green team and enforce an order similar to that of the NPO over the red team.''--Franklin2 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) That speculation part is down right questionable. It invalidates this whole page. Bilrow 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Bilrow Indeed, especially considering the numerous posts by the officials involved that there was no actual intent of war. --Shan Revan 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The "Speculations over the GGA's (and NPO's) Motivations" section has been problematic from the beginning. The first version was blatantly anti-GGA and anti-NPO. The second version was blatantly anti-GPA. Really, this article should stick with the facts. Trying to get inside people's heads is just too problematic. What this article still needs: * Explanation and details of the aid to GOONS incident. * Arguments used by GPA to defend itself. * Later DoN withdrawals (included stated reasons). * Statements of support of the GPA and non-withdrawals from the DoN. Veasna Imm 19:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) :I'm unsure about removing the "Speculations" paragraph, Veasna. What is speculated about may not be a fact, but the speculations are happening and they're facts (the fact that many speculate). :Again, any idea for having the speculations also accounted for, but in a NPOV way? Jerdge 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC). ::I don't really see much point in including the commentaries of armchair generals, however if you must then I'd suggest something along the lines of as follows. ::It has been speculated, despite the numerous statements from the leaders of relevant alliances to the contrary (to put the speculations in perspective) that have used the mass hysteria and forum drama to justify a war on the GPA out of jealousy/greed/otherconspiracyreason. for whatever reasons. However no declarations of war have occurred to date and these remain merely speculations of mostly people uninvolved. ::The important part is the speculations need to be put into the perspective that they really are just speculations if you're going to include them. Although as previously stated I don't feel it's necessary. Additionally the title "motivations?" is inappropriate. It would be better be labelled something less misleading such as "speculations' or "conspiracy theories". ::Shan Revan 11:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC) :::Well, since so many spoke against that paragraph to be there, and nobody (but me) had doubts about it, I'm dropping the issue. Anyway, it seems that somebody else decided to put it back as it was. Probably you will be able to properly edit it, Shan. Jerdge 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC). Further details The alleged offence, according to the GGA parties involved, consisted in the very "BilrowAIDS" name. At the moment the GGA started blaming the GPA, BilrowAIDS had in fact not said anything at all. However, his name implied that the player Bilrow was suffering from a disease, and Bilrow, as well as '''many' others, respectfully asked for the name to be changed.'' I believe that: * The "others" were some, but "many" is an opinion; in that IRC session "many" were also mocking Bilrow. * The request, while polite and not offensive, may not be classified as "respectful": some even read (more or less hidden) threats in the GGA Officials' words. Better "politely" (or nothing at all). * The GGA Officials asked for the user to be punished, not simply for the name to be changed. I edit the article accordingly. Jerdge 23:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC). GOONS' aid thing Here's a rough timeline of events if someone wants to write them up. If someone wants to dig around for dates and other such information then good for them. Otherwise you'll have to wait for me to find some time. *IRON officers approach GPA officials regarding a member aiding goons and are rebuffed and ignored. (This was a couple of days before the OOC incident by the way) *IRON council gets involved and directly talks with GPA government. An expediated trial was promised and they admitted to fault (fu can be found admitting this in the thread in which we take off our don signature). *IRON chases up on the event a couple of days later and find their handling of the situation and their rhetoric and pandering in diplomatic discussions generally undiplomatic and unneutral. *IRON removes the signature due to their insufficient handling. * ^IRON recives conflicting answers regarding the results of the trial. First that the trial was a mistrial and it needed to be redone, later told that he was actually found innocent of all crimes. *IRON expels GPA from its forum, closing down their embassy and withdrawing our diplomats in response to what was considered abysmal handling of the situation and a valid casus beli if we so desired one. * It's probably not entirely NPOV but meh someone can work from that. EDIT: forgot to sign it. Shan Revan 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)